Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I intend to reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is not necessary for us to intervene in a lawsuit that is on appeal. Even if we did, we would be intervening against the weight of what other courts have ruled, and we would also threaten the efforts that this body and many people in it are undertaking, trying to resolve the tricky issues of pension plans, conversions of other pension plans between defined benefit and defined contribution plans. This does not belong on this bill, and I ask Members to oppose the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think there are many Members of this body who would object to any form of competitive sourcing of work that is currently being done by government workers. It is not a case of the specifics of any particular framework for doing that, they just want to make sure that people that have government jobs are the ones that do the work, despite inefficiencies, despite work that may be outside of the core work of a government agency. For example, a government agency that may be involved with health care does not have expertise in cleaning its facilities or landscaping its facilities or copying services, or many of the myriad of things that are outsourced or competitively sourced frequently. They may have their own cafeteria workers rather than hiring a company that has expertise in running an employee cafeteria. There is a multitude of instances where it makes sense for the government to do what the private sector has done, and that is to take government functions that are performed by government workers that are not inherently governmental and find someone else that can do it better and cheaper. The goal of so many Members of this body is to shut down any effort to make the Federal Government more competitive and more efficient because they want to make sure that people are on the government payroll, even if it costs more to do the work, and even if it is less efficient. If it uses more of the taxpayers' money, they do not care. They want to preserve government employees' jobs. Well, this is not even a question about whether those people will get the jobs. If they go through the process of competitively sourcing it, and maybe letting someone else come in, typically they will hire the same people to do it, but under a new management. Moreover, when we have competitive sourcing competitions between government workers and the private sector, then government workers have to become more competitive; government workers have to become more responsive. In fact, in these competitions, typically the government employees retain 90 percent of the work. They are not outsourced. This amendment is just trying to stop government efficiency because we have some Federal employee unions and others that insist that the people that do the work have to be members of their unions. That should not be the issue. The issue ought to be making the most of the taxpayers' money. Now, the administration has already sent us what is called the Statement of Administrative Policy that tells us if this language gets in this bill, it is headed for a veto. We do not need that. We do not need to hurt the taxpayers and we do not need to slow down the legislative process by having a veto on a bill that needs to be adopted and needs to be passed. The administration has acted to try to streamline what is called the A-76 process, the competitive sourcing process. They are trying to make it more efficient. They are trying to make it fairer to everybody involved. They have tried to make sure that instead of taking 4 years, 4 years, Mr. Chairman, as it often takes to manage these competitions under some old rules, they say you ought to be able to do it in 12 months. That is common sense where I come from, and it is common sense to most people. This amendment, though, wants to shut it down. The amendment wants to block the Committee on Government Reform. It wants to block savings for the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill and I ask other Members to oppose the amendment also. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is not about whether we keep or do not keep jobs in the United States of America. We are going to keep those jobs. The question is: Does certain work within government agencies have to be performed by a government worker or do they have the ability in a government agency to find the best deal for the taxpayers; the most effective and economical way to accomplish the task? If it is cheaper to pay a private service to do some work that otherwise you would have to hire a government worker to do, why not hire that private service? Look about us, businesses that have proliferated, for example take the copying business, things like FedEx, Kinkos, and the UPS stores, who do copying over and over. Because they do the same thing and they do it repetitively, for that reason it costs everybody less. Are my colleagues telling me that if we have a big load of copying to do in a government office, and believe me, that happens all the time, are we saying the only way we should be permitted to do it is with a government copying machine, with a government worker standing at that, rather than sending it out where the same thing can be done for less and done quicker and cheaper? That is a simple example, but it makes the point. There are lots of things the Federal Government does that do not need to be done by the Federal Government. They do not involve people interpreting Federal laws, they do not involve people making a judgment call, they are not law enforcement issues, they are not privacy issues, and they are not confidential information. They are just everyday things that can be done in the private sector as well as in the government sector. If we competitively source those and give other people the chance to do it, what is wrong with that? What do some people say is wrong? Well, for goodness sakes, then it is not done by somebody that is a member of that government workers' union. And that is the essence of the challenge. That is what the amendment is about. Let us save the taxpayers money and vote against the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, which I believe is 4 minutes, to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I commend the ranking member and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for their leadership on this issue. Throughout my time in Congress, of course, I have been a strong supporter of establishing fair market rate for the disposal of excess Federal real property, and I believe the provision we had in this bill accomplishes that. It is unfortunate that under our parliamentary procedures it was stricken on a point of order. I do agree this sale actually generates revenue for the Federal Government, the $2 million. I understand the concern of the gentleman, that the town has moved forward approving the funds, and I want this resolved in a manner that does not jeopardize that agreement. I pledge to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member, as we move through conference to be able to reinstate this provision. Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the FEHBP is successful because it offers opportunity to Federal workers to choose among a variety of plans, to pick which one best meets their needs. It also is successful because when you make that choice, it is not permanent. Annually there is an open season. If workers have gotten into a plan that does not meet the needs of their family the way they desire, they can change every year. The gentlewoman's amendment says, for certain plans, workers do not have that option. They have to lock themselves in for 3 years. It is a way of killing a type of plan, and we should not do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when we want fair competition, we try to make an equal playing field. If they have a horse race, they try to make sure that each horse is carrying the same burden. They weigh the jockey, they weigh the saddle, they wear the gear; and if they are not the same, they add extra weight to some people so that they are all carrying the same burden. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia's (Ms. Norton) amendment wants to make sure that one type of health care plan does not have fair competition. They say to them, you carry an extra couple of hundred pounds. That is not right. If we want people to have a fair choice and to determine what plan is right for them and their family, they should be able to choose it. I ask people to reject the amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the good intentions of the gentleman from Texas. He and I both share a great concern about the national debt, about the challenges of having a budget that is not balanced as it should be in normal times, certainly in peacetime. However, this particular amendment does have problems. The amendment is not necessary to make sure that we have protection for existing trust funds. And I want to refer to some papers we have been provided by the Treasury Department, and I will recite from those for Social Security. For the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, i.e., the Social Security trust funds, that are specified in the proposed amendment, there is existing law, namely title 42 of the U.S. Code, section 1320b-15, that already prohibits any officer or employee of the United States from delaying the deposit of any amount into, or delaying the credit of any amount to, any such trust fund or otherwise varying from the normal terms, procedures, or timing for making such deposits or credits. That existing law also prohibits them from refraining from the investment in public debt obligations of amounts in any such trust fund or from redeeming prior to maturity amounts in any such trust fund which are invested in public debt obligations for any purpose other than the payment of benefits or administrative expenses from any such trust fund. We do not need the gentleman's amendment to protect the Social Security trust fund. Secondly, again, proceeding with the information from the Treasury Department for another trust fund, for the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Government Securities Investment Fund, existing law, namely title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 8348(j)(3) and (4) and title 5 of the U.S. Code, section 8438(g)(3) and (4), these already require Treasury at the end of a debt limit impasse to restore those trust funds to the financial position they would have been in if Treasury exercises the authorities given by Congress to suspend investment or make early redemptions of investments of the CSRDF or of the G fund. Then for the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, the Unemployment Trust Fund, the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund, the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Fund and the Black Lung Disability Trust Funds, which are specified in the proposed amendment, there is no history that Treasury has ever delayed deposits into or has ever suspended investment or redemption of investments early in those trust funds during debt limit impasses. The amendment is not necessary to safeguard trust funds. It is not necessary to handcuff the Treasury Department in the management of the national debt. It is necessary that we take steps to control Federal spending and to move toward balancing the Federal budget. But this amendment is not necessary. I thought it important that someone stands up and recite this information from the Treasury Department to make that case of the lack of a need for this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time in order to close.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas and I are in agreement on a great many things, and I appreciate his pointing that out. I think we both also recognize that the gentleman's intent is to try to force a vote on what is called the statutory debt ceiling and to force a vote before the elections. Well, we all know that this fiscal year expires September 30. I think it is common knowledge in this town also that with the possible exception of the homeland security appropriation, this current appropriations bill and the other appropriations bills will not be completed before the fiscal year expires September 30. We do not expect most likely those bills will be completed before the election. Whatever is in this bill is not going to be law by that time. Any instructions to Treasury or anybody else in this bill will not be in law by that time. So we are not accomplishing anything. But we also should not mistake a vote on the statutory debt ceiling for the votes that actually create the debts of the United States, the spending bills. People argue about the tax cut bills, and I will certainly tell you the tax cuts have done a great deal to stimulate the economy, not only to help people keep more of what they earn, but actually to increase the revenues of the Federal Government by increasing economic activity. We can have that debate another time and place. That is not my point. My point is we are not accomplishing anything in this particular amendment. Each administration, Republican and Democratic administrations, have had to deal with the challenge of the statutory debt ceiling being set to expire at a certain time or be exceeded. Treasury Secretaries have had to do what they could to make sure the crisis was not created, to make sure that we averted any problems and that the full faith and credit of the United States never lapsed behind our obligations. That is going to happen again. Those obligations are not going to lapse. But let us not mistake votes upon a statutory debt ceiling for the votes that actually create the debt, which is talking about the level of spending. Let us remember that we have the opportunity, which I expect we will have in the next couple of weeks, to vote on a balanced budget requirement to make sure that in normal times, when we are at peace, in normal times we do have a balanced budget. That will force discipline. That will force controversial votes on this floor. It will require us to exercise self-discipline, to accept our responsibility. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not necessary. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and his concerns over this issue; and it is my understanding, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, that after we spend the time on the debate that the amendment is actually going to be withdrawn. But it does not mean that the gentleman does not raise important issues. The conflict between chartering and laws related to State banks and national banks is an ongoing one and, frankly, I have not studied it enough to know whether I would agree or disagree with the gentleman and his comments. But I do know that this is not the proper forum to have this debate. This is something that probably should be brought up by the authorizing committee, because this goes so much to the heart of the very structure of the banking system in the United States. It should not be decided lightly. It should not be the subject of quick debate and superficial thought by this body. It demands long consideration. It requires hearings, and it requires very, very careful scrutiny. The regulations which the gentleman mentions have already been in effect for a great number of months. Catastrophe has not happened. I do not believe that it is necessary for this House to adopt this amendment, and certainly, it is not proper for us to decide banking structure of the entire country in a few minutes of superficial debate on this crucial issue. This is not the bill where we should decide this issue. This is not the time. This is not the place, and I oppose adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to notify Members who are listening: We are here on the floor. We have entered into time agreements for discussion on amendments, but the Members who are to present those amendments are not here on the floor. We need them to come to the floor to present their amendments so that we may move forward and resolve the consideration of this bill. We know that we are not going to be able to complete bill consideration today because we have a short day so that Members can be home for Rosh Hashana observances later today, but I want to make sure that Members who have amendments are notified that they need to be coming to the floor. They need to be coming to the floor right now if they expect to present their amendments. Otherwise, they would lose the opportunity, of course, to do so. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am not aware of any amendments that are ready with Members here on the floor to present them. So I have nothing further to add to my remarks at this time if the Chair wants us to wait a few minutes for Members to arrive. But I wanted to give that information.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. With all due respect to my good friend from Colorado, I do rise in opposition to his amendment not because I oppose reducing spending. I wish the budget that we have adopted for this year was spending less money than we are overall. However, at some point, we make decisions, we develop a group consensus and we have to go ahead with that. We made those decisions, Mr. Chairman, when we adopted the budget earlier this year. There were proposals for lower spending limits along the lines of what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is talking about. I believe I supported those efforts, but we did reach a decision on what is the total amount of spending in this year's budget. We made the allocation to the individual subcommittees, and now we need to work within that particular framework. If we adopted a revisiting of the amount today on one bill, then we do on other bills and so forth, that is fine; but we could do it at the next stage and next stage and so forth. We have to have a concept of finality. We have reached conclusions on the overall spending level for this year. Once we have done those, we need to work within those guidelines. Secondly, when my colleagues want to reduce spending, as I do want to reduce Federal spending, it is much better to take a thoughtful approach and go through bills and say if we are not going to spend as much, this is where we cut because it is not as high a priority as some other things that we are doing in that piece of legislation. The gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) approach is not as good as that. It is an across-the-board approach. It reduces high-priority programs by the same amount that it reduces low-priority programs. That is not the best approach that we should be taking. Again, we have made the decision on the overall spending for this year, and we should accept that decision and move forward with the appropriations process.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I have a lot of faith in this administration. However, when we are deciding what is high priority and what is a lower priority and, therefore, where our reductions should be made, I want to make sure that this Congress is involved in exercising our judgment, not only the administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mrs. Capito's amendment and the seriousness of this issue. When we talk about private collection of debts, we should understand that the Federal Government is already using private debt collectors in other areas. One significant example is student loans. I have certainly visited facilities where private companies are handling the confidential information involved. They are handling it with responsibility. They are handling it in compliance with all legal standards, and they are doing a very good job for the Government, not only getting revenue that we would lose otherwise if we did not collect on the debts but collecting on debts that the Federal Government was having difficulty being able to collect upon. Not only is this happening in the Federal Government, it is happening in State government. We have a number of States that already use private vendors to collect delinquent taxes on behalf of their State government. Again, they manage to handle these issues of confidentiality in a very responsible manner. There is no reason to believe that a private entity is unable to do this. There is reason to believe, however, that we have to do some serious things about improving the collection process. There is some $16 billion that the IRS says is not only owed but is collectible. However, it is not always efficient for the IRS to be the entity that does so. We need to have a mix of the people that are working directly for the IRS and those that are working for a private entity to collect these debts. And for those that are concerned about our shifting jobs away from a particular area where debt collectors may be located, remember those same people can be hired in that area just as easily, in fact, sometimes more easily than they can in another. It is not a job loss issue for local communities. We have seen so often, when we make a transition to try to involve private enterprise, that often they will be in the same area as the public enterprise was located to collect these. This is an issue that is, frankly, premature, however, because even though there are good reasons to go to this, we do not have legislation that now permits it. Mrs. Capito's amendment says: Do not do this. Well, guess what? Under the current law, we cannot do it anyway. So it is not necessary to adopt an amendment to say do not do something that the law currently does not permit you to do. I would like us to move in that direction. I will certainly acknowledge that, but we are not there yet, and it is unnecessary to have an amendment that stops us from doing something we cannot do at the current time. For these reasons, I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either side?